Cinq survivants

This movie starts off with a mushroom cloud and pictures of what were the greatest cities on earth. It then shows a young woman named "Roseanne Rogers" (Susan Douglas) in a disheveled condition walking down a lonely road in a state of shock and disbelief. She happens to see a cabin perched upon a mountain top and decides to take shelter there. Once inside she meets a man named "Michael Rogan" (William Phipps) who is as startled to see her as she is to see him. They think they are the last two people on earth. Until two more men show up and then a third. One of these men, "Eric" (James Anderson), believes that they have developed an immunity to the radiation and that they should drive to a city a few days away to look for more survivors. Michael believes that the city is dangerous due to high levels of radiation and unsafe. Now, rather than give the entire plot away I will just say that this is a surprisingly good movie for its time and it is rich in drama and tragedy. Definitely worth a watch for those who enjoy dystopian films of this nature.

I have been searching for a copy of this film on video for ten years. Like others who have commented, it has haunted me since seeing it as a l7 year old when it was originally released. In recent years I learned that the set was Oboler's own home designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. I would be quite interested to see it as newly built compared to some recent color photos of the structure available in various FLW collections.

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.

This is one of those cases where the flaws of the film in question are undeniable, and yet...there's something about this earnest little effort that gets to me. Perhaps there is something about the 50's look and feel and sound that I find winning; the actors do their best by the overripe but affecting script; and there is also the fact that, however primitively, the movie does attack prejudice and bigotry as the disgusting things they are. The strong background score by Henry Russell is really quite beautiful in spots, terrifying in others -- the slow orchestral buildup in the scene where Roseanne finds her husband gives me the shivers whenever I hear it. Personally, I don't find the film boring; once you ease into its rhythm it plays quite well. And the ending...well, yes, you can see it coming a mile away; but keep a handkerchief ready just in case.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.